Black Kite (talk | contribs) Warning: Disruptive editing on Homophobia. (TW) |
Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Homophobia. (TW) |
||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's [[WP:ANI|Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. |
* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's [[WP:ANI|Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. |
||
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. <!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC) |
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. <!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Homophobia]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. |
|||
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:55, 29 September 2014
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Alexander Domanda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --StuffOfInterest 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
On President of the United States if you have a problem with wording, please write about it on the talk page first. If you need to learn about referencing, check out Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. If I can be of assistance, let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't add your own comments or analysis to articles, as you did with President of the United States. If you have a concern about an article's accuracy, please take it up on the article's talk page, which in this case is Talk: President of the United States. Thanks, and happy editing. --RrburkeekrubrR 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
December 2010
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Roman Empire. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please read WP:VERIFY Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 09:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
February 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Sally Hemings. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
May 2012
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sicily. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Saint, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WP:EUPHEMISM Aaron Booth (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Saint appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Aaron Booth (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Saint. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Aaron Booth (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greystones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
March 2013
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Iraq, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. You did the same to the Lebanon article and Christianity in Iraq before, and this is wholly inappropriate. If you want to change something, find sources that can back your claims first. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thessaloniki uncited content
Hello, thank you for your interest in Thessaloniki. However I would like to point out that the content you are adding is (a) unsourced and (b) in conflict with the source that actually exists on that particular topic. If you have something to add please use sources. I will continue to revert your unsourced edits and if you revert them still I will have no option than to request that you be banned on the grounds of the 3 revert rule. I would not want to do that, so please either use the article's talk page to discuss the issue or use sources. Regards, --Philly boy92 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is a second warning - you reverted to your edit again and someone else removed it again. Please do not do this again or I will have to ask that you be banned for 24 hours fro editing wikipedia. I have left you a very polite note above and you have failed to respond to it. --Philly boy92 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Your cited addition at Roman Empire...
...in the section on Slaves. Thanks very much for providing a source, including page numbers, for your addition. I thought it might help you to read Wikipedia policies on WP:Citation style, and in-line citations. You've embedded yours in the main text, and we don't need to know the authors name or work in the readable text of the section. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates and Help:Referencing for beginners without using templates. Ah, OK, I see that the same problem holds for you addition to Slavery in ancient Rome.
Also please note that "etc." and "et cetera" ("and the rest") are best avoided in article text (unless as part of a quotation) because when it comes down to it, "and the rest" says nothing particular about anything, except perhaps to readers who already know what "and the rest" actually refers to - and if they already knew, why would they need to read the article? Better to be terse and precise. If I can help, please ask. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
Hello, I'm Jackson Peebles. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Hyacinth Bucket because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Umayyad Caliphate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Roman Empire]]. During his reign, [[Rhodes]] was occupied briefly and raids were made on[Crete]], and [[Siege of Constantinople (674–678)|several assaults were launched]] against [[Constantinople]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Homophobia. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Homophobia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)